stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
- 78 days in “deplorable conditions” did not implicate a liberty interest
- two months not enough on its own
- an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIS MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 24-cv-1738-NJR
LATOYA HUGHES, JOHN/JANE DOE
WARDEN, JOHN/JANE DOE
GRIEVANCE OFFICER, JOHN/JANE
DOE COUNSELOR, LIEUTENANT
JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER GARCIA,
JOHN/JANE DOE LIEUTENANT,
JOHN/JANE DOE SERGEANT, and
JOHN/JANE DOE CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Willis Mitchell, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who
is currently incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mitchell’s
Complaint (Doc. 1), alleging that he was issued a disciplinary ticket that was later
expunged, was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Doc. 9). Mitchell
was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. His Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) was
also dismissed without prejudice for again failing to allege a viable claim related to his
disciplinary ticket, and he was granted leave to file an amended pleading (Doc. 14).
Mitchell has now filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18).
The case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to
screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Second Amended Complaint
On March 26, 2024, an unknown correctional officer called to Mitchell (Doc. 18,
p. 4). When Mitchell approached his opened cell door, the correctional officer pulled
Mitchell out of his cell where three more correctional officers were waiting (Id.). The
officer slammed Mitchell against the wall and placed him in cuffs (Id.). The three
unknown correctional officers punched Mitchell in his side three times (Id.). The officers
then escorted Mitchell to segregation and placed him in a shower (Id.). Mitchell alleges
that he complied with all of their orders, and they left. As they were leaving, Mitchell
noted that the four officers consisted of two correctional officers, one sergeant, and one
lieutenant.
Segregation correctional officers then escorted Mitchell to his cell. Mitchell noticed
that the cell was cold because of a broken window (Doc. 18, p. 4). He also noted bugs in
the cell and feces on the mattress and walls (Id.). He told the segregation officers about
the conditions. He placed his hands through the chuckhole for his cuffs to be removed
and felt a sharp pain (Id.). After his cuffs were removed, he noted that he had a deep cut
on each wrist (Id.). He informed the correctional officers of his injuries, but they ignored
him (Id.). Mitchell moved his mattress and saw bugs crawl out of it (Id. at p. 5). He tried
pressing the hot water to clean his hands and learned the hot water did not work (Id.).
He remained in the cell for 14 days (Id.).
Mitchell filed a grievance about his placement in segregation and the disciplinary
ticket he was issued for fighting (Doc. 18, p. 5). He was not able to have witnesses called
or even have a hearing. He received a summary of the charges from Lieutenant Johnson
and Christopher Garcia, but he never spoke to them (Id.). His grievance was denied by
the counselor, grievance officer, warden, and the Administrative Review Board (Id.).
Preliminary Dismissals
To the extent Mitchell once again seeks to raise a claim regarding his disciplinary
ticket, he again fails to state a claim. Mitchell notes that Lieutenant Johnson and
Christopher Garcia found him guilty of fighting without speaking to Mitchell or allowing
him to call witnesses. While these allegations could amount to a due process violation,
an inmate’s liberty interests are protected by the Due Process Clause only insofar as a
deprivation of the interest at issue would impose an “atypical and significant hardship
on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 484 (1995). A short stay in segregation, by itself, does not typically amount to an
atypical and significant hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Thomas v.
Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 761-62 (7th Cir. 1997) (two months not enough on its own); Williams
v. Brown, 849 F. App’x 154, 157 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that 30 days is not enough).
Although in previous pleadings Mitchell suggested that he remained in his cell for four
months (Doc. 14, p. 3), in his Second Amended Complaint Mitchell indicates that he was
housed in the cell for 14 days. Although Mitchell notes that the cell was infested with
bugs, dirty, lacked hot water, and had a broken window, the extremely short stay does
not amount to an atypical and significant hardship. See McCoy v. Atherton, 818 F. App’x
538, 541-42 (7th Cir. 2020) (three months in a dirty cell without cleaning supplies and near
potentially violent inmates not enough to state a claim); Obriecht v. Raemisch, 565 F. App’x
535, 540 (7th Cir. 2014) (78 days in “deplorable conditions” did not implicate a liberty
interest). Thus, Mitchell once again fails to state a due process claim.
To the extent that Mitchell seeks to allege a conditions of confinement claim for
the state of his segregation cell, Mitchell also fails to state a claim. Although he alleges
that his cell was dirty, littered with bugs, and lacked hot water, he fails to identify a
specifical correctional officer to whom he spoke. He merely alleges that he told the
correctional officers in segregation. These claims are too generic to survive threshold
review as Mitchell does not describe the individuals in segregation whom he spoke to or
even state the number of them.
Further, to the extent Mitchell sues officials who reviewed and denied his
grievances, he fails to state a claim. He alleges that the warden, grievance officer,
counselor, and Latoya Hughes denied his grievance about his disciplinary ticket. But the
alleged denial or mishandling of a grievance does not state a claim. See Owens v. Hinsley,
635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s]
grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying
conduct states no claim.”). Thus, any claim against the grievance officials is DENIED
without prejudice.
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court designates
a single count:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against John Doe
#1 Correctional Officer, John Doe #2 Correctional Officer,
John Doe Sergeant, and John Doe Lieutenant for punching
Mitchell and placing him in tight handcuffs on March 26,
2024.1
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is
mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should
be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly
pleading standard.2
At this stage, Mitchell states a viable claim against the correctional officers,
sergeant, and lieutenant who removed him from his cell on March 26, 2024, and punched
him. Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009). In order to help identify the
John Doe Defendants, the Court ADDS Darren Galloway, in his official capacity as
warden of Shawnee Correctional Center, to the case solely for the purpose of responding
to discovery aimed at identifying the unknown defendants. Once Galloway has entered
1 Although Mitchell merely refers to two unknown correctional officers, the Court has identified
them as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 for clarity purposes.
2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face”).
his appearance, the Court will enter a scheduling order describing next steps for
identifying the John Does.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against John Doe #1
Correctional Officer, John Doe #2 Correctional Office, John Doe Sergeant, and John Doe
Lieutenant. Darren Galloway is ADDED to the case, in his official capacity only, for the
sole purpose of responding to discovery regarding the unknown defendants.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Darren Galloway (official capacity
only): (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons) and
(2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms,
a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to
Galloway’s place of employment as identified by Mitchell. If Galloway fails to sign and
return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the
date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service
on him, and the Court will require him to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If Galloway can no longer be found at the work address provided by Mitchell, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with his current work address, or, if not known, his last-
known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed
above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be
retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file
or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order. Because Galloway is only in the case for identifying
the John Does, he only needs to file his notice of entry of appearance.
If judgment is rendered against Mitchell, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(£)(2)(A).
Finally, Mitchell is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court
will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not
later than 14 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply
with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 24, 2025 Tl
wefehllmnsig
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the defendant of your lawsuit and
serve him with a copy of your Second Amended Complaint. After service has been
achieved, the defendant will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your Second
Amended Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to
receive the defendant’s Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more.
When the defendant has filed an Answer, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order
containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendant before filing any motions,
to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions
filed before defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as
premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless
specifically directed to do so.